On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:08:55PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > From: Steve Rikli <[email protected]> > | First question: is the difference intentional? E.g. is there some reason > | tgz (tar.gz) is preferred over tar.xz for certain architectures? > > Yes, the only difference (obviously) is which compression method is > used - xz makes smaller files than gzip (gz) but is much slower to > compress, and more importantly, uses lots more memory to decompress. > > So, using xz means smaller set sizes (faster network transfer times) > but requires the system installing them to have sufficient memory to > achieve that (if relying upon paging, unpacking might take forever).
Ok, I imagined it would be something like that. So the theory is presumably that these older system types: > > tgz : alpha i386 macppc sgimips sparc sparc64 have smaller CPU and RAM than these generally more modern system types: > > tar.xz : amd64 evbarm-aarch64 so the older models use the less-resources-to-unpack compression method; is that about right? Assuming that's the deal, and further assuming no changes in the daily sets compression methods status quo, a PR for sysupgrade seems prudent: - remove sparc64 from the "tar.xz" if-then-else code - add evbarm-aarch64 to it instead This would remove the need to change ARCHIVE_EXTENSION in the default sysupgrade.conf for both system types. Does that sound correct? Cheers, sr.
